Comments on: Legitimizing the Politicization of Science http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3174 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Shep Ryen http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3174&cpage=1#comment-749 Shep Ryen Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:44:47 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3174#comment-749 First off, this is Roger Pielke's piece, not mine. But, to take a stab at your question, your points 1) and 2) assert a scientific fact. Those facts do not in themselves determine what course of action one should take. One makes a moral judgement, e.g. global warming is bad, after sorting through a slew of factual and value preferences. In this particular case, you imply at least a moderate amount of risk aversion when stating that "the runaway greenhouse effect is largely unknown... there is a point of no return there." Others might agree with your facts, but suggest that the same risk is tolerable. And that is just one very quick, imperfect example of how those same facts can yield different courses of action when considered with different value preferences in mind. Shepper First off, this is Roger Pielke’s piece, not mine.

But, to take a stab at your question, your points 1) and 2) assert a scientific fact. Those facts do not in themselves determine what course of action one should take. One makes a moral judgement, e.g. global warming is bad, after sorting through a slew of factual and value preferences.

In this particular case, you imply at least a moderate amount of risk aversion when stating that “the runaway greenhouse effect is largely unknown… there is a point of no return there.” Others might agree with your facts, but suggest that the same risk is tolerable.

And that is just one very quick, imperfect example of how those same facts can yield different courses of action when considered with different value preferences in mind.

Shepper

]]> By: joe http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3174&cpage=1#comment-748 joe Thu, 17 Jun 2004 18:46:53 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3174#comment-748 I'm starting to think that I don't follow you on this, Shep... you're just to damn smart. For example, doesn't is seem reasonable to reason: 1) increased greenhouse-gas emissions will lead to a heightened state of global warming, 2) decreasing emissions and activities that facilitate this will help to stave off this onset. I can see how you could argue that we have to *value* either decreased emissions or economic productivity (feeding people). However, the timescales under which these operate (economy operates under short timescales while climate response is much longer), and the errors associated with knowing for certain what is going to happen (the runaway greenhouse effect is largely unknown... there is a point of no return there) seems to weigh heavily towards decreased emissions. Politically, who will value decreased emissions? It won't be GWB. I’m starting to think that I don’t follow you on this, Shep… you’re just to damn smart. For example, doesn’t is seem reasonable to reason: 1) increased greenhouse-gas emissions will lead to a heightened state of global warming, 2) decreasing emissions and activities that facilitate this will help to stave off this onset.

I can see how you could argue that we have to *value* either decreased emissions or economic productivity (feeding people). However, the timescales under which these operate (economy operates under short timescales while climate response is much longer), and the errors associated with knowing for certain what is going to happen (the runaway greenhouse effect is largely unknown… there is a point of no return there) seems to weigh heavily towards decreased emissions.

Politically, who will value decreased emissions? It won’t be GWB.

]]>